Tim Cook confirms updated Mac Pro coming in 2013 - Page 5

It's not just a failure to innovate in any way. All they did was update pricing to reflect changes in cpu pricing and switch a couple cpu models around. The 8 core became a 12 core for $300 more. This is a pretty far cry from getting Sandy Bridge E, updated gpus, and updated features. Also I like Linux. If I could get everything running well under Debian or Fedora, I would never boot into OSX again.

 

I only typed it like that because it sounds funny. I'm a little annoyed by things like facebook integration under Mountain Lion. I'd like a lean OS with good stability. The priorities at the top of Apple's list are not really my own. Runs cooler would motivate me more than computer is .25" thinner than the previous generation. I think I've got my upgrades figured out for the year anyway. They do not include a RMBP or the rehashed nehalem towers. If their notebook updates really look good, Haswell is hyped as a major update anyway. If we're talking about more of a Merom like shift rather than a Sandy Bridge one, I'm all for it.

 

If you are gaming yes.  For GPU compute the differences are probably more than the 1%.

 

"Simply enabling PCIe 3.0 on our EVGA X79 SLI motherboard (EVGA provided us with a BIOS that allowed us to toggle PCIe 3.0 mode on/off) resulted in a 9% increase in performance on the Radeon HD 7970. This tells us two things: 1) You can indeed get PCIe 3.0 working on SNB-E/X79, at least with a Radeon HD 7970, and 2) PCIe 3.0 will likely be useful for GPU compute applications, although not so much for gaming anytime soon."

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5264/sandy-bridge-e-x79-pcie-30-it-works

 

Mostly I look at this from a GPU compute perspective because that's our greatest use for them.

 

From a gaming perspective there's a limit to the amount of textures and data pushed across so I can see why going from x4 to x16 isn't that big a change.  What you also need to show is for GPU compute activities the difference is still only 1%.  Everything from CS6 GPU acceleration to scientific CUDA code.

 

 

 

 

Except when you have a card that wants more than 10 Gbps bandwidth.  A single PCIe 3.0 x8 slot has 8 GB/sec bandwidth...that's more than all 6 TB ports together.

 

 

Neither the GTX 680 nor the Radeon HD 7970 are small GPUs to be put in the motherboard or an iMac like mezzanine card.  And again, not everyone will want a Knights anything on the MB.  Their specific needs may call for a Tesla card or something else.  The Teslas we have have 6GB of RAM aboard and is fairly massive.

 

This isn't a consumer machine.  There are users that need specific GPUs and compute engines for their work so PCIe slots are much better than integrating it all into the box.

 

 

 

 

Ugly PCI cards?  When do you see them?  Hacking together?  In what sense?  Xeons + ECC is what workstations are.

 

 

 

Best in class for whom?  Gamers?  Video pros?  CAD users?  What?  Mostly the gaming GPUs have better performance but the Quadros the stability desired even at the cost of performance.

 

 

We haven't done any MIC coding yet that I'm aware of.  Maybe it is as simple as Intel and the youtube demos suggest.  Something tells me probably not quite.  My impression is that you're still going to need to code against the 512 bit SMID...kinda like uber SSE coding.  And I want to see something beyond CERN's embarrassingly parallel example.  

 

Wont be long, we're smack in the middle of Intel's target market for MICs. But it's very niche.  I see a completely different need set by the more general pro market.

Sandy Bridge E, the processor anyways isn't a big deal, it is all the support functions that would make a huge difference. A SATA and PCI Express bumps would have made a huge difference.

As to Linux I do like it but it is also frustrating in that much of the software on that platform is trying. As you note getting things running can still be a hassle. Honestly that doesn't bother me one bit. Other changes have like auto save have really pissed me off yet at times I'm happy that is there. Beyond that I like that they keep the Unix subsystem fresh without constant minute changes happening. I'm actually hoping to get through the year without buying any major Apple hardware. I will admit that I'm tempted by that new RMBP. Unless they seriously rethink the Mini, the Mini won't even come close to the RMBP performance wise.
Well if Intel keeps its promises. My attempt to displine myself and avoid a Mac this year is just trying to prioritize things in life a bit. Haswell isn't a goal but obviously could be a very big win for these machines.

GPU compute would loose more performance than graphics acceleration over TB. Generally there is lots of data to move around. Even with todays systems data movements can swamp the performance advantage of a GPU.
It should be worst. Of course that depends upon the exact type of compute activity going on. But in general every compute operation involves sending and receiving data from the GPU. Even a 4X slot would be more powerful. Maybe the video card goes into a slot. I just don't see that happening unless Apple and Intel come with a new board standard that routes the video lines for TB.

As to Knights Corner I see its incorporation into the mother as a requirement. Developers need the certainty that the accelerator will be there I see a machine with slots but maybe not with the power some of those accelerators need. used Improperly the CPUs in KC will look pretty bad.

Actually I see the opposite. KC offers a way to accelerate many apps that is very approachable.

These quotes never paste correctly anymore. Anyway Sandy Bridge isn't even a bad update on the cpus. It's not revolutionary, but neither is Ivy Bridge E. Both are incremental, and they use the same chipset. Assuming cpus of equal cost, you'd get way more on that $3800 machine than you do now. You could have a pretty sweet 12 core that's around the performance of the prior top model. You could also have a significantly faster 6 core around the $3kish realm. Add in usb3, sata update, PCIe 3.0, etc. like you mentioned and it's a big step up. Every part of that is significant, including the cpus, as the exist in a realm where you pay a premium for diminishing returns, so you can bring some incredible performance to the $3k realm compared to $5-7k. That is a big win. I'm really disappointed in their update. Considering that I only work from my own machine a portion of the time, I'm somewhat budget sensitive.

Even as low as 75% performance means that a game on maximum enthusiast settings would run at 26fps vs 35fps (the 7970 ran at 86% = 30fps). High-end cards can run games with everything on. Just tweak a few settings and the experience will be the same and make up the small 5-10 fps difference.

It should be almost zero difference for compute as reported on the following thread but it depends how it's done:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=65035

GPUs have their own memory so you can just run the code and data from there if there's enough memory. But this isn't something you'd be doing on a standard Mac Pro anyway. It has a 300W PCI power limit so you only get one high-end GPU and a single high-end GPU can go in the Cube.

Which card has such a desire?

Manufacturers have to design all their wide variety of boards to a certain form factor. A giant dual-GPU has to be designed to fit in the same slot as a small fibre-channel card. Some cards have no reason to be wasting a full slot but you have no other choice. Some PCI adaptor cards are nothing more than a connector to a large external box. Again, wasting a full slot.

Thunderbolt means no peripheral wastes more than it needs to. Manufacturers who want to build an I/O adaptor with a single cable can do so in a small size (e.g GigE and FW800 adaptors from Apple). Manufacturers who want to build specialized equipment for video can actually make a product fit for purpose with all the right inputs. If they need 10 different I/O ports, they're not going to fit those on a single PCI card. They'll split them and block multiple PCI slots, it's an ugly hack.

Even high-resource users shouldn't be expected to open up their machines and slot in raw boards. Everything that's not a core component should be plug and play.

Honestly Marvin you amaze me. Your statements make about as much sense as www.anandtech.com when the fiddle with video settings for Intel integrated graphics until they can declare how good they are. To hell with the readers that actually want good video performance just make sure it looks good so the "Marketing" goodies continue to flow. I doubt you are getting any marketing goodies from intel so I'm not sure why you would propose tweaking the settings until the frame rates are good enough. Not so much how it is done but rather the problem set in question. SETI at Home may be far more optimal than other problem sets where moving data back and forth becomes a real issue. I disagree, you can get a Lot of computational power into a 300 watt video card these days. Who knows? With current drivers and hardware today's video cards barely benefit from PCI Express 3 on sixteen lane slots. But then again that is still much faster than 10GBps

There are probably a number of cards that can make use of more than 10 Gbps. I don't have a list, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. none of this has in anyway discounted the need for slots. TB simpy isn't fast enough no matter how much you try to twist facts to support it. Realize though that I'm right with you hoping to see more TB ports in the Mac Pro replacement. It is just that I accept the limitations of those ports which means in my mind the Pros replacement needs real PCI-Express slots. Preferably fast slots with 8 or 16 lanes. It also means an end to clean and uncluttered installations. Really where do you expect all of those dongles, expansion boxes and power supplies will go? TB has its place but I just don't see a huge advantage in Pro installations and many disadvantages. Or they run a single cable to a break out box.
Garbage! The higher your resource usage the greater the need to get to the faster bus that a 16 lane PCI Express slot offers. We are talking Pro users here, not some Joe off the street without a clue.

I'm not talking about Intel's IGP where the competition can be 50-100% faster. This performance drop is minimal. There will be an internal GPU anyway so almost no one will need to have this setup. But if they wanted to, it would work.

And it may not. I've shown where it's not a problem for computation, you show me where it is.

Building a list should be easy though and yet no one seems to have done this.

TB isn't as fast as a PCI slot, whether it's fast enough is debatable but optical connections are certainly fast enough:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/8/2854040/ibm-holey-optochip-optical-chipset

That discounts the need for slots.

How many peripherals do you expect people will have? The vast majority will have none.

The people who currently use a Mac Pro have 3 slots free. A single Magma box with a power supply covers this.

So, professional video editors and graphics artists should be expected to know how to install PCI cards inside a workstation? Presumably they should be expected to know how to service an Arri Alexa or a high-end tape deck? I don't think they should. I think they should know how to do their job and if they need a peripheral, it should plug in like any other peripheral.

We aren't seeing a true optical thunderbolt in the current year. The cabling was more to work around length restrictions. I'd have to find  the details on it. How is a prototype design from IBM that is likely aimed at server/enterprise markets relevant to a 2012-2013 machine in the four figure realm?

Take a look at the cost when you replace a previously standard feature with a niche solution that must be supported through all of Apple's random changes in requirements. Lion actually dumped quite a lot of devices when they dropped carbon support. Given the cost of rewriting drivers, it may not have been acceptable anywhere the margins were fairly lean. This has also been a problem with usb3 drivers. If they could rely on Apple for the driver stack, you would have cheap cards available with reasonable performance. Adding in driver development is costly given the sometimes razor thin margins on such cards.

 

Marvin while the tape deck might seem daunting given a potential lack of familiarity, installing a PCI card is not complicated, and it requires very little technical inclination. If your job requires you to know how to service the other items, then you do it or budget the cost of contracting someone who does know them. I worry more about the people who ask me why Raid 1 isn't a combination of storage + backup *bangs head on desk*. Anyway I'm still not of the opinion that a technology in its infancy is a valid replacement for stable technology today. If such things become popular enough, Regarding cabling messes, you'd laugh if you saw mine. I really need to clean it up.

 

 

So you are saying that pro video editors & graphic artists should not have to know how to install a PCI card, but before that you imply that they should know how to use a Magma expansion chassis (which would require them to know how to instal PCI cards into it)…?!?

I was talking about the future of interconnects discounting the need for slots entirely. I think they are aiming for 20Gbps in 2014. TB as it stands right now will still cover most (I would say all) usage cases of PCI.

I don't like the Magma box particularly, it's expensive and you have 3 cards on one TB port. That was an example for people who don't like the idea of cable clutter. A good example would be the Decklink vs UltraStudio:

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/decklinkhdextreme/
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/ultrastudio3d/

$995 each but the PCI version is going to block two PCI ports with the HDMI bracket and all the I/O ports are at the back of the workstation. The TB version is not only much better designed, more easily accessible but is plug and play.

No need to check if cards will overload the power limit of the ports, no allocating PCI lanes, no shutting down the computer to install. I think it's a much more elegant solution. Plug and play and run-time loading should help with drivers too - no specific boot-time requirements.

 

10% is not minimal.  And given that folks leverage memory access via pinned memory in existing CUDA code for performance the ability to leverage PCIe 3.0 latency improvement is significant.  25% over PCIe 2.0. 

 

An integrated GPU is sub-optimal for many workstation users and a wasted cost.  If it were on die that would be one thing.

 

 

 

I provided a link that indicated that folks expect a 10% degradation. On PCIe 3.0 this difference could be larger.  There's a lot of RAM on a Tesla sure, but you also have to load that RAM for your task with your dataset.  That's a memcpy from host to device.  Then back again to get the results out.

 

Here's another link from toms:

 

"We’d expect to see GPU computational limits exceed bandwidth limits at 2560x1600, yet the worst-case scenario still shows 23% lower performance for the x16/x4 configuration. Again, the average difference is stuck at 10%."

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pci-express-scaling-p67-chipset-gaming-performance,2887-10.html

 

So going form two slots configured x8/x8 to a x16 slot and a theoretical x4 TB link shows a performance hit anywhere from 23% to 10% when using crossfire.  

 

10% is not minimal.

 

 

 

Any card listed as needing x8 lanes.  I've mentioned that the Rocket is in this category.  You can take it up with Red for inflating specs if you like.  Show first that none of these x8 cards actually utilize the throughput of 8 lanes.

 

 

 

 

The vast majority can use a iMac.  Why not just dump the Mac Pro entirely based on that premise.  Again, what does your box buy you above either an iMac or a compute configured Mini without slots?

 

Many off board expansion chassis use interconnects faster than 20Gbps today and measure using gigaBYTEs rather than gigBIT throughput.  The magma box is a great solution for laptops but is not the kind of chassis used for workstations.

 

In any case the current benchmarks show that 3 rockets is optimal because of PCI bandwidth limitations according to Rob Lohman on the Red Team:

 

"It works on the Mac up till 3 in the tower (not a full speed, obviously) and we can support more through a PCIe extender. However, I do not expect those scenarios to run at full speed (due to limited PCIe bandwidth available in the towers)."

 

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?69425-REDCINE-X-Professional-Update-Build-9-Beta&p=906633&viewfull=1#post906633

 

"does rocket x6 get's us 6times faster decodes???? sounds interesting at all.

 

It does if your system have the PCIe and overall bandwidth to do that (not a Mac Pro tower)"

 

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?69425-REDCINE-X-Professional-Update-Build-9-Beta&p=906187&viewfull=1#post906187

 

Here's a benchmark with 3-6 Rockets:

 

"If you're like me, it's no secret that the trend of higher shooting ratios is on the rise. With more cameras, more coverage and more footage to process, the need for additional speed may be welcomed by independents and facilities alike. Recently, my friends Torrey Loomis from Silverado Systems and Eric Fiegehen from Cubix helped us out by allowing us to test the latest Cubix XPander (http://www.cubix.com/products/gpu-xp...nt/rackmount-2) with REDCine-X Pro v9. We then tested the Rocket acceleration performance with 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Rockets in a MacPro (read and write disks were separate volumes). And thanks to Rob and Matt at RED for their advisement and hard work in optimizing RCX-Pro v9 performance. After some extensive testing, the Cubix XPander is a great tool for people who are looking to increase their REDCine-X Pro transcode performance to be much faster than real-time."

 

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?71788-6-ROCKETS-and-REDCINE-X-PRO-v9

 

This limit is due to the bandwidth constraints of a shared x16 slot...a TB link peaks out far lower.  It also indicates that the Red x8 spec is not bullshit and actually uses around 6 lanes worth of PCIe 2.0 bandwidth.  If is only used x4 then it would scale to 4+ cards before being PCIe bandwidth constrained.

 

 

Pro video editors and graphics artists have these guys and gals known as "tech support".  Failing that, the installation of a PCI card is a trivial exercise involving opening one panel, loosening two screw and popping out a plate, inserting a card into a notched slot that's impossible to stick in backwards, replacing a plate then tightening two screws and then closing one panel.  Finally, if they really don't want to do that they can pay Best Buy $50 to insert it for them.  Kinda expensive but what the heck, I pay a guy to change my oil.  Something I used to do for free myself.

I'm perfectly willing to wait another year to replace my 2006 Mac Pro (6GB, Radeon 5770) with a new one, expecially if it will use an Apple TV for a monitor. I just hope the old HDs hold up.
 

I think it is. If Apple sold you a Mac Pro in 2012 that was 10% faster than a 2011 model, would it be worth upgrading to? Of course not because it's a minimal difference in performance.

That's been demonstrated to work just fine in a Thunderbolt box.

So someone who works for RED selling $4750 PCI cards recommends you buy at least 3 of them so you can decode the proprietary RED codec in the most optimal way. People outside of RED experimenting with 6 of them have spent nearly $30,000. This is all to work with RED video formats. For that money, you can build a far more cost-effective transcoding solution that works with more than just RED.

You could for example buy 10 of the little Cubes and hook them all together for at least 60 Xeon cores. I doubt 6 RED cards will do a better job than 60 Xeon cores plus 500 Knights Landing cores.

It's just more of these fictional scenarios that don't have any relevance to the issue about the Mac Pro's future. The amount of people in the world who have $30k to spend on a single workflow can probably be counted on one hand and a fraction of that money is going to Apple. You will notice in my scenario, Apple (and Intel btw) gets the most money so is obviously the better option for them.



Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication and Thunderbolt is the simplest option of all. Put in the plug and go.

 

For certain users yes.  And we're talking about a 10%+ delta that costs less than an external chassis solution that TB requires vs slots that already exist in the Mac Pro.

 

 

That has been demonstrated to WORK but not at full speed in a Thunderbolt box.

 

I have no idea why you ask for evidence of something and then disregard data simply because it doesn't support your baseless assertion.

 

You show me that there are no cards that use more than x4 bandwidth.

 

 

Yes, I'm sure video pros are complete morons being duped by Red.  And $30K isn't a lot of money for some Pro users.

 

 

The only thing fictional is your little cubes at the price point you're dreaming of.  And they are likely to remain that way.  If using a cluster compute solution was all that then folks would already be using them beyond render and trascoding farms.  I can already buy 2U servers with Xeons and a slot inside.  What makes you think what you suggest is in some way unique or new?

 

What isn't fictional is the hard fact that quite a few pros need the large amounts of bandwidth provided by PCIe and are hungry for more.  $30K?  I've spent $30K on a freaking RAM drive for some applications. I've bought fully populated blade servers for a single project as a small compute cluster.  The chassis alone I think was $25K at the time.  Then I put in a dozen Xeon blades in there and a few disk packs.

 

$30K for Rocket cards?  If we need them we buy them.  Heck we bought a Tesla compute chassis and a bunch of Teslas and that's a lot more than $30K too.  I can't remember how much it cost but remember thinking that Dell was making some serious profit off us.

 

You vastly overestimate the utility of parallel computing and the value of 60 Xeon cores for certain tasks.  Sometimes paying tens of thousands for 10% single thread performace is what pros do because that's the way to get the job done. 

 

And yes, 6 Rockets will do a better job because that's what the software is written for.

 

I'm still amazed at the crepe Apple pulled with the Mac Pro 'update' and had the audacity (which reflects their current hubris) to call it 'new'.  No wonder one of the original Mac evangelists went public and pulled Apple's trousers down over this narcissism.

 

That Apple had to remove said 'new' status is unprecedented...

 

That Apple had Cook and a Spokesperson come out and public and say they had a great Mac Pro coming 'late' 2013 is nothing short of astonishing.

 

It's...well...nothing short of farcical.

 

...along with the confusion over the potential iMac update...2013?  'Late' 2013?  That's Apple's 'flagship' desktop.  And that machine garners the best part of Apple's '1 million' give or take in desktop sales.

 

It leaves their desktop strategy...in tatters.  Shocking.  Really, really shocking.

 

There hasn't been anything remotely approaching this lethargic or absurd since the PPC clockspeed crisis when Apple and Moto swapped jibes over the availability of the 500mhz G4.  Or when Apple had to offer 'two' G4s because Moto couldn't get their act together.

 

Sure, Moto copped the blame back then.  But this time?  The hubris is all Apple's.  They have the ram, the gpus, the motherboards, the billions, the mindshare, the bricks and mortars stores to print more money by offering a 'sane' desktop range.  They have the new cpus ready to go.  They have thunderbolt.  They have a case that hasn't been touched in ten years.

 

It's nothing a 2 bit PC (throw the components into a box) supplier couldn't do in a few days/couple of weeks.  The standard parts are out there to put out a fair better update.  To put out AN update!  (Because, that 'disgrace' to Apple's performance desktop wasn't it!  No way in hell.)

 

Is this really the same Apple that put out the 'legendary' blue and white G3 on a price performance delta that would shame the current Mac Pro?  The same Apple that used to have an affordable iMac in it's range?  (But has seen the base price of an iMac DOUBLE in the last ten years?)

 

The current pro is an over priced joke.  Look at the '3 year' old GPUs still on offer.  My 'tag line' still reads true all these years later.  What's with offering crepe gpus in a 'workstation' product?  Are they for real?  Who's in charge of desktops over there.

 

Sure I get we're moving to laptops and iOS gadjets real computing for human beings.  Sure.  We can see the floor move beneath us.  However, that '1 million' in desktop sales could be 25%-100% better if you gave people a little more choice...or even gave them updates.

 

For Apple to have only updated their laptop line in half a year into 2012 is simply madness.

 

Apple's desktop strategy is as rigid as it is farcical.  You have to pay almost £1000 before you can get a desktop with a monitor.  You have to pay over £2000 before you can get one you can 'realistically' upgrade in the full meaning of the word.

 

Apple sat on dual core tech' for years while quad core was common place on PC desktops.  Apple gave the iMac several gpu 'side grades.'  One such top of the line 'update' had Phil Schiller have to come out publically and offer a Nv 7600 (or something...) as another top end gpu option after iMac owners finally cracked at the kind of crap they pull over the 'new' Mac Pro.

 

Historically, Apple had a G5 as low as £995.  The old G3 and G4 had entry prices closer to £1000 than £2000+  And Apple may wonder why the sales of the thing are tanking?

 

I like the iMac.  But I can understand why people like Dave (Wiz'), Hmm and other's get ****** off with Apple.  I do recognise that their needs could be relatively easily catered for.  But Apple's blinkered hubris is reflected in the out cries from the Pro community and elsewhere.

 

You have desktop lines with year old components that haven't even been given a price break to reflect that simple fact.  THEY'RE OLD!  EVEN Apple can't defy gravity indefinitely.

 

Unless it's a political move to be THE 'mobile' computer company (they, arguably, already are?) ie to use mindshare to sueeze the desktop market and the traditional market to the new mobile market where...yes.  I guess they are king (if you count phones, tablets and laptops).  That I don't have a problem with as a long term objective.

 

But we're a couple of years at least from that.  And it is less than nothing for a company like Apple to put out a decent desktop with a decent price that doesn't gauge you for components that are mainstream or entry priced on the PC side.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.  (Hopping.)

Edited by Lemon Bon Bon. - 6/19/12 at 3:43am

...and Apple are 'huge' now on bulk buying supply chain power.  It's not like they can't command good pricing on components.  Still paying outrageous prices on ram, SSD and out of date GPUs. It's not the same Apple of the 1990s..? ;)

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

The silver lining?

 

At least the Mac Pro isn't dead.  Tim Cook himself confirmed a 2013 model implying a radical shift.

 

The iMac should at least get an update in the next couple of months.

 

Despite my rant.  It doesn't affect me.  (But I can understand the frustration of others who are waiting...)  I'm waiting for retina screens and a significant gpu and cpu performance boost before I go near another iMac (that points to at least Haswell) or this 'muted' Knights landing (which I haven't heard about at all...) Pro update (if they ever make an affordable one again...)

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

"We had a chance to test out this pre-release thunderbolt case a week before and during NAB. The 3 slot PCI-e Magma thunderbolt case works well in Windows 7 boot-camp or Mac OS X. Red rocket transcodes with a new Macbook Pro 17" are near real time (1:1) using about half or less of system processors, the same performance seen in a Mac Tower."

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?77616-Magma-Thunderbolt

PCI 3.0 doubles the potential bandwidth for TB too so even if there is an x8 card that is starved for bandwidth, it will be sorted in the next couple of years.

Everybody in the film industry is being duped. Look how much Will Ferrell is getting paid.

The RED cameras and Arri Alexa (which can record direct to ProRes) will run $25-50k per camera so no, that amount of money isn't a lot for some users but it is a lot for a lot of users and Apple isn't profiting from the few.

You are suggesting that a Mac Pro has to be designed for people who:

- spend $25-50k on a single camera
- spend $30k on PCI cards
- spend $6k on a Mac Pro (of which Apple profits $1500)

I'm saying this group of users who spend over $60k to allow Apple to make $1500 is not as important a group to Apple as they might like to think. Companies aren't in business to make money for other companies.

It's not even a design they have right now as the Pro only has 3 slots available - they have to buy:

http://www.cubix.com/product/gpu-xpander-desktop-2-80gbps

That's right, an external expansion box. Yes it has a faster connection than TB but those speeds are on Intel's roadmap and it's hardly an urgent requirement:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/29/intel-touts-50gbps-interconnect-by-2015-will-make-it-work-with/

If you are in a race car where 10% can mean winning a race and not but not in Apple's domain. They're already far more than that behind PC workstations and have never shown a desire to be the fastest.

You keep advocating that Apple designs the Mac Pro for a very specialised subset of professional users but the volume and profits are so small that it's not worthwhile. If they aren't in it for volume and profit then what else is there? Nobody knows or cares who these high-resource users are so it's not for publicity.

If not for profit, why should Apple keep building the Mac Pro the same way?

Let's not go crazy here.

Sure.  After years we get a crap Mac Pro update...I guess we can't take anything foregranted at Apple.  Except that the Pro will have crepe GPUs as standard...and be way overpriced for what it is.

 

2013, here we come.  If we're lucky we'll get this year's cpus and gpus at the back end of 2013.

 

Hey, Apple...just look at your own dirty record on the Mac Pro...

 

2012 'update?'  Shame, Apple.  SHAME!  BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

*Passes burning torches, chains, hands out broken glass, incites angry mob...

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Oh, they'll do that just fine on their own, even if Apple comes out with a modular computer system with seamless OS-level distributed computing.

It's good to see you posting again. I was wondering what happened to you.

This is called setting the bar low. They could come out with Sandy Bridge E a year late, and it would still benchmark well in comparison to what is currently available. If pricing does shift by then, this could also be leveraged, although I'm not sure whether they'll do that. That they did so this time was merely a cop out. Dog ate my homework. Can I get an extension? I don't see myself buying a new mac pro. I have some ideas of what I will do, but I don't care for Apple's direction overall. The unserviceable platform would bother me less if nothing ever broke inside it. Batteries naturally die from consumed cycles and drives die from wear far faster than a logic board or power source should break down.

It is the only explanation I can come up with to explain the micro Pro update. Frankly I'm all in the refactored Mac Pro boat. If Apple doesn't debut new technology, stunning new technology, to replace the Pro in 2013 they will have a crisis on their hands.

Frankly the current moves have the sound of a bean counter saying: why bother updating this hardware when the new generation is six months away! A total disconnect from the user and his expectations.

 

 

I did read the Tim Cook also stated that its just the "Mac Pros" not the iMac.. which leads me to believe the iMac is soon! 

What sort of crisis are you talking about?

 

If Apple lost every current Mac Pro customer, it wouldn't have a measurable impact on their bottom line.

 

The vast majority of Macs sell to consumers.  These are not the people buying the Mac Pro.

 

Apple does not need an expandable high-end machine in order to maintain Mac growth.  They need to continue to appeal to consumers with lightweight portables, and pretty looking iMacs.

 

 

The most profitable way  for Apple to do that would be to make each box sealed - if you want more RAM, buy the bigger box.  Now or later.  Same with SSDs - there is no profit incentive to letting the user muck around with the internal components, to install a bigger SSD.  Simply buy a bigger size from '

Apple and plug it in.

a lost of consummer confidence. Note I'm not talking about just the Pros here. One pony shows just don't have the staying power.

Beyond that Apple would suffer from even more bad press. I'm not sure I believe this. Certainly income from current Mac Pro sales is a tiny fraction of the rest of the companies sales. However I see follow on effects that would cause many users to pause and think about their use of other Macs. this really isn't true either. Macs may not sell into the corporate world but they are used buy a number of professionals and small business. In fact I see this as a common misconception, Apple does have strong sales to consummers but it is balanced by very high sales to professionals and business people. The AIR is especially popular with people on the move.
I believe you are mistaken with the above because you believe Apples primary user is the consummer. You also seem to think that Apples desktop line is doing well, it certainly isn't in the USA.

While most of this is true you do have to balance consummer needs. In this regards storage needs are always growing, so devices still need to be serviceable in that regards. Also sealed boxes are better for fixed numbers of apps, this is where something like Apple TV could excel.

 

Hasn't the majority of their growth overall been outside of the US in the past year or two? Prior to the last ipad launch ipad sales were still growing. This didn't come from the US market.

 

Mac Pro owners (at least all the others I've seen) tend to own a ton of Apple products. They'll own laptops too, idevices, and pass the older stuff down to their kids.

 

Certain fields like publishing, video editing, and audio have been big on Macs for many years. Autodesk even ported Smoke to the Mac, then dropped the price to $3500. This is a tiny fraction of what it would cost on Linux running dedicated hardware. The capabilities are probably lower, but it's relatively cheap for what it is. Imacs could probably do the low end of that workload. Overall Apple would probably have a much bigger share of these markets if they worked/cooperated with developers. I guess it's a matter of motivation, but some people on here are so silly when they claim there's no money in catering to the high end of anything.

If it can be made a little bit lighter and more compact without losing any of its expandability, I might get one. Size always was an issue for me. Then again why doesn't Apple make a mid tower with Core i5/i7 for those who want performance but doesn't need Xeon.

In effect this is the XMac question. That is a small midrange machine with a few drive slots, a fairly decent GPU and a manageable box.

I'm actually holding off on purchases of any other Apple products while I wait for the Mac desktop that meets my needs. (I don't need a Xeon Mac Pro but I need something that has some expansion like the Mac Pro case just not as big.) I see no reason to support Apple financially buying their other products that I don't find as necessary to own while I can't get the one product I really wish to have.

I believe that Apple makes most of their money from iPhone/iPad/iPod sales.

 

In the quarter ending March 31, 2012, Apple took in $5 billion in revenue from all Mac Sales.  In the same quarter they took in $6.5 billion from iPad sales.  iPhone sales were $22 billion.

 

In terms of Mac sales, about 70% of revenue was from portable sales, only 30% from desktop sales (which include iMacs, Mac Minis, and Mac Pros).

In terms of unit sales, Apple sold 2.4 portables for each desktop computer sold.

 

Bottom line - Apple's primary product is their iOS platform (iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch/Apple TV).  The Mac produce line is inconsequential.  In terms of the Mac product line, the portables are where the sales are.  Desktop machines (of which the Mac Pro constitutes only a small fraction) are not important.

 

If Apple discontinued the Mac Pro tomorrow, most people wouldn't notice (although those that would notice, are the ones who frequent this site).  If Apple discontinued the entire Mac line tomorrow, a few more people would notice, but they would still be an insanely profitable company.

 

But there's no need to take my word for any of this.  All of these numbers are publicly available in Apple's SEC filings and press releases.

Continue waiting forever. We already know your position.

Apple can never discontinue the entire Mac line until you can develop iOS apps under iOS. This is a fairly file-centric task with lots of source code files and text and would require a terminal. If the UI changed on plugging an iPad into a large display, it can be done but I think in the near term, we will more likely see Apple trying various things to keep their product lines profitable enough to justify making them.

They could get rid of the desktops eventually but they all have a target audience. The Mac Pro audience is the smallest and shrinking in share relative to the others so is by far the most likely to go first but we'll see what they do next year. Tim Cook's word usage was interesting:

"Although we didn’t have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro at today’s event, don’t worry as we’re working on something really great for later next year.

We also announced a MacBook Pro with a Retina Display that is a great solution for many pros."

You notice he never said there was a new Mac Pro coming next year, just a product aimed at the same audience. Time will tell what form it takes. It's a very long time to wait for an update though and I suspect technology developments in the mean-time will make it clearer what's coming:

http://technewspedia.com/futurology-intel-cpus-sky-lake-have-an-igp-based-on-larrabee/

 

Would it not be amusing if it were a high-end xMac?

This is very silly. IOS currently lacks the tools to operate a standalone platform. If you're suggesting they develop them for Windows or Linux, that takes time, beta releases, and transition plans. That could not happen tomorrow. Did you (mistakenly) think your comment was clever simply because you can read bar graphs?

 

I'm not reading into it AT ALL. The problem I'm currently facing is that Windows is starting to make more sense in terms of features and available hardware. I'll probably just procrastinate the decisions again, but corporate speak regarding may release product X within 12 months means nothing to me. He's just trying to reassure people. CEOs do this at times. As you mentioned, they need development hardware, and this has to accommodate a large range of developers. Beyond that if they just canceled that many lines overnight, the bad PR would hit their idevice sales too. The last thing I'd like to mention is that the person you responded to apparently doesn't think 15% of revenue is significant for a large corporation. That alone should tell you something.

It would - it could just be an iMac with the display panel ripped out. The 21.5" 2.8GHz quad-i7, 512MB 6770M GPU. Take $200 off for the panel and it's $1499.

You can see the excessive margins in the Mac Pro when you compare it to this as the spec is around the same, likewise performance. The Xeon isn't the expensive part so something between the iMac design and the Mac Pro design is sucking up $1000 and I don't think it's the components.

Well it has to be one of a limited number of scenarios:

- they update it without a new design with Haswell/Ivy Bridge Xeons
- they discontinue the line in favour of a 6-core iMac or similar
- they redesign it significantly

If it was the first, they'd have updated it with Sandy Bridge Xeons and brought Thunderbolt and USB 3 along for the ride.
If it was the second, I don't think Tim Cook would have said anything.
This points to number 3. We already know the potential issues with Thunderbolt and a PCI GPU and Haswell is supposed to be quite low-power so I think the redesign will be quite radical and The Mac Pro's last (its burial suit, really) - in a decade, it will have no place.